The accepted standard of care for patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) is anticoagulant therapy. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are reserved for those patients who fail anticoagulant therapy, or have a complication or contraindication to anticoagulant therapy. Until the early 1970's, the only method of IVC interruption was surgical, either by clipping, ligation or plication. The first clinical experience of an endoluminally-placed device to interrupt IVC flow was reported by Mobin-Uddin et al. in 1969. However, it was not until the introduction of a stainless steel umbrella-type filter by Greenfield et al. in 1973 that an effective method of endoluminally trapping emboli while simultaneously preserving IVC flow became possible. Indeed, for many years, the Greenfield filter set a benchmark by which newer filters were measured. Early generations of filters were inserted by surgical cut-down and venotomy. Eventually filters were able to be inserted percutaneously: initially through large 24 Fr sheaths, though newer generations of filters are able to be delivered through 6 Fr systems.
Despite the safety and efficacy of modern day filters, systemic anticoagulation remains the primary treatment for VTE. Either unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin followed by three months of oral anticoagulation in patients with proximal deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is approximately 94% effective in preventing pulmonary embolism (PE) or recurrent DVT. The routine placement of IVC filters in addition to anticoagulation in patients with documented DVT was investigated by Decousus et al. in a randomized trial. Decousus H, Leizorovicz A, Parent F, et al. A clinical trial of vena caval filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med 1998; 338:409-415. This study revealed that the use of a permanent filter in addition to heparin therapy significantly decreased the occurrence of PE within the first 12 days compared to those without a filter. However, no effect was observed on either immediate or long-term mortality, and by 2 years, the initial benefit seen in the group of patients with filters was offset by a significant increase in the rate of recurrent DVT.
Despite the efficacy of anticoagulant therapy in the management of VTE, there are certain situations and conditions in which the benefits of anticoagulation are outweighed by the risks of instituting such a therapy. These include contraindications and complications of anticoagulant therapy. In such circumstances, there may be absolute or relative indications for filter insertion
Well-founded concerns over the long-term complications of permanent IVC filters, particularly in younger patients in need of PE prophylaxis with a temporary contraindication to anticoagulation, has led to the development of temporary and retrievable filters. Temporary filters remain attached to an accessible transcutaneous catheter or wire. These have been used primarily in Europe for PE prophylaxis during thrombolytic therapy for DVT. Currently these devices are not approved for use in the United States. Retrievable filters are very similar in appearance to permanent filters, but with modifications to the caval attachment sites and/or hooks at one end that can facilitate their removal. Retrievable filters are currently available in the United States, examples of these include the Günther Tulip (Cook Inc.), Opt Ease (Cordis Corp.), and Recovery nitinol filters (Bard Peripheral Vascular, Tempe, Ariz.) Lin P H, et al., Vena caval filters in the treatment of acute DVT. Endovascular Today 2005; January:40-50. The time limit of retrievability is in part dependant on the rate of endothelialization of the device, which typically occurs within 2 weeks. However, differences in design may extend the time period in which the filter may be safely retrieved.
Currently no consensus exists as to which patients have an indication for a retrievable filter. However, it is generally accepted that patients at high risk for pulmonary embolism or with documented PE and with a temporary contraindication to anticoagulation are candidates. Certain circumstances preclude the placement of a filter in the infrarenal IVC. This includes thrombus extending into the infrarenal IVC, renal vein thrombosis or pregnancy. The safety of suprarenal placement of IVC filters is well documented, with no reported instances of renal dysfunction and no differences in the rates of filter migration, recurrent PE or caval thrombosis.
The rate of upper extremity DVT is on the rise. This is predominantly due to an increasing number of patients having short- and long-term upper extremity central venous access catheters. In one study, 88% of patients found to have an upper extremity DVT had a central venous catheter present at the site of thrombosis at the time of diagnosis or within the previous two weeks. Pulmonary embolism may complicate upper extremity DVT in 12-16% of cases. In patients who have such a complication or contraindication to anticoagulation, a filter can be safely placed immediately below the confluence of the brachiocephalic veins. However, misplacement of an SVC filter is theoretically more likely than with an IVC filter because of the relatively short target area for deployment.
In addition to providing a vascular filter for endoluminally trapping emboli while simultaneously preserving vascular flow, vascular filter assemblies (“VFA's”) known in the art include additional features including, for example, a filter geometry in which the proximal portion of the filter, relative to the axis of blood flow, has larger interstitial openings to permit thrombus or embolic material to flow into the filter, while the distal portion of the filter, again relative to the axis of blood flow, has relatively smaller interstitial openings that capture the thrombus or embolic material within the filter. Note that a jugular approach necessitates that the VFA be introduced retrograde relative to the vector of blood flow within the vena cava, i.e., the VFA is introduced through the jugular vein and directed inferiorly toward an infrarenal position. Additionally, since the blood flow opposes the distal end of the VFA and passes toward the proximal end, the vena cava filter must open inferiorly such that its largest diametric section in apposition to the vessel walls opens toward the distal end of the VFA rather than toward the proximal end of the VFA as with the femoral approach.
The VFA may include fluid infusion ports positioned in the sidewall of the central access catheter to which the vascular filter is attached. Such fluid infusion ports may have a directional flow orientation such that any or all regions of the space delimited by the vena cava filter may be exposed to fluid flow therefrom.
The VFA may include proximal and distal ports disposed in the central access catheter and positioned entirely or partially distant from an open area bounded by the filter permit measuring pressure and/or flow velocity across the filter as a determinant of extent of capture of embolic material in the filter or for measuring flow rate at the position of the filter member as a positional indicator within the body. Such pressure and/or flow sensing may be accomplished by a hydrostatic fluid column in communication with each of the proximal and distal ports and a pressure transducer operably associated with a proximal end of the central access catheter.
The proximal and distal ports, and lumens associated therewith, may also provide means for introducing fluids, such as an anticoagulant, thrombolytic or other bioactive agents, contrast medium, blood transfusions, intravenous fluids or other medications. Alternatively, the proximal and distal ports may be used for withdrawal or evacuation of fluids or other material through the catheter. The multiple infusion ports also provide a means for introducing a flushing medium, such as saline, under elevated pressure to produce mechanical thrombolysis or induce thrombolysis by the infusion of thrombolytic agents directly to thrombus within the filter.
VFA's including the above-noted features are disclosed, for example, in Angel U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0062840 and Angel et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0217304, both of which are hereby incorporated in their entirety herein. However, a need exists for a VFA including a self-expanding vascular filter attached to a catheter and constrained by a low profile sheath including a port passing through the sidewall of the sheath.